[will_hughes]

> Only dumb developers continue to use such things once a standard property is available

There are a LOT of sites which once they get deployed, almost never get touched again. Either because they have no developers available or due to lack of time/interest.

So, what was a good way to achieve X at the time the site was developed is no longer be great five years later.

[ryandrake]

If they can't be bothered to fix their code, then those web sites surely wouldn't mind if browsers eventually started popping up a dialog that says "This web site content may be abandoned or no longer supported by [domain]. Proceed with caution!" upon loading outdated code. That would be one way to handle this and direct user complaints to the right party.

[pcwalton]

> That would be one way to handle this and direct user complaints to the right party.

Actually, that would result in users getting annoyed, complaining to the browser manufacturer, and switching browsers.

[hudell]

But if the site used prefixed css, it's possible that no other browser would render the site properly anyway (many sites these days are made with just chrome/safari in mind)

[pcwalton]

Yes. What users do upon encountering such a site is to switch to Chrome or Safari.

The goal is to discourage browser-specific content in a way that doesn't result in users switching browsers.

[toomanythings2]

The only developers who make sites that work just in Chrome or Safari are rank amateurs. No professional would do such a thing. Professionals understand that a web site must work for all visitors and I have never heard of any web site that would do otherwise. To me, this is only an internet rumor and not based in reality.

The only exception would be when one particular feature is needed to display one specific, unique element. Off the top of my head, I can't think of what that would be.

[gue5t]

It would be great if we could also make media like books, music, and movies completely unusable five years after publication.

[netheril96]

And eventually the user will ditch the browser instead of the website if the website solves any real problems for them.

[endgame]

I like that approach: http://www.daemonology.net/blog/2016-04-11-write-opinionated...

[will_hughes]

There's a big difference between changing compiler tools, and showing stuff to end users who likely have no idea what the hell is going on, and we'll just have more of these[1] situations. (Even if it's a fake comment, it's close enough to real responses from people)

Most of the sites in the world are run by people who have little to no understanding of the internet beyond the most basic "series of tubes" aspect.

If you're going to break something because you don't want to support backwards-compatibility any longer, break it in the least obnoxious way possible.

[1] https://i.imgur.com/SL88Z6g.jpg

[ryandrake]

There will always be non-technical users. The trick is to focus their frustration on the parties they should be frustrated with. Take for instance those screens browsers present when you try to visit a website with dodgy security. These are universally awful user experiences and users likely have no idea what the hell is going on, but browsers do it anyway for the users' benefit and for the long-term health of the web. When users encounter these warnings, they don't think "Oh jeez, Firefox sucks so much" they think "I better get the hell out of here and not visit this web site anymore".

I'd argue that more strict adherence to standards and rejection of old, deprecated code is better for users because it's better for the long-term health of the web as a platform. The effort spent maintaining a mess of unnecessary backwards-compatibility (particularly with things meant to be temporary from the start) is effort that would be better spent providing actual value for users in the form of quality improvements, better performance, and features.